Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix bug when test_fail is called via a do statement #349

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 5, 2013
Merged

fix bug when test_fail is called via a do statement #349

merged 1 commit into from Apr 5, 2013

Conversation

nnutter
Copy link
Contributor

@nnutter nnutter commented Apr 5, 2013

test_fail used $0 as the filename instead of the filename reported by
caller. Under normal execution these would be the same but if the test
is executed by a do block then these would no longer be the same.

test_fail used $0 as the filename instead of the filename reported by
caller. Under normal execution these would be the same but if the test
is executed by a do block then these would no longer be the same.
schwern added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 5, 2013
fix bug when test_fail is called via a do statement
@schwern schwern merged commit 63606c6 into Test-More:Test-Builder1.5 Apr 5, 2013
@schwern
Copy link
Contributor

schwern commented Apr 5, 2013

Thanks for the patch and the great tests!

Fascinating. I'm kinda curious how that came up.

@nnutter
Copy link
Contributor Author

nnutter commented Apr 5, 2013

Our tests are very slow so we wrote TestTracker to record which module
a test uses so we can "guess" which tests need to run based on what code
changed. It is just a quick hack that wraps prove and provides a script to
use for prove's test executor. It could probably be a prove plugin but it
works well enough for now. It wraps each test by executing the test in a
do block which additional logic to track the modules loaded in %INC.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Michael G. Schwern <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Thanks for the patch and the great tests!

Fascinating. I'm kinda curious how that came up.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/349#issuecomment-15956238
.

@nnutter
Copy link
Contributor Author

nnutter commented Apr 19, 2013

Do you want to backport this to 0.98 too? I can make the patch if you like.

@schwern
Copy link
Contributor

schwern commented Apr 19, 2013

Up to you.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants